Re: Orangs as Closest

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Harry Erwin: "Re: Bipedalism and theorizing... was Re: Morgan and creationists"
• Previous message: Matthew O. Fraser: "Re: Orangs as Closest"
• Maybe in reply to: Matthew O. Fraser: "Orangs as Closest"
• Next in thread: Bob Keeter: "Re: Orangs as Closest"

Hey Again,

Dan Grossman wrote:

>Poor Jeff is a persona non grata to most physical anthropologist re his
>assertion that orangs are our closest relatives. Most textbooks do not
discuss >his theory.

Yeah, I do remember that he was good at pissing people off, like
Gingerich. I had always attributed that to his exclusive use of
cladistical analysis. Seemed to shake a lot of colleague's branches.

__________

Steve Barnard wrote:

>I've heard about it, but I don't know the details. It sounds *extremely*
>unlikely to me, but I have an open mind about it.

Yeah, it really rocked the proverbial boat. I'm not saying that I agree
with it, and not any big fan of his, or anything, just wanted to know how
his ideas went over in the long haul. He was a most meticulous person.

Thanks,

Matt

-- 

Matthew O. Fraser                    "If you can't answer a man's

Department of Pharmacology            arguments, all is not lost.

School of Medicine                      You may still call him

University of Pittsburgh                       vile names"

Pittsburgh, PA 15261

mof@prophet.pharm.pitt.edu                     John Homans

• Next message: Harry Erwin: "Re: Bipedalism and theorizing... was Re: Morgan and creationists"
• Previous message: Matthew O. Fraser: "Re: Orangs as Closest"
• Maybe in reply to: Matthew O. Fraser: "Orangs as Closest"
• Next in thread: Bob Keeter: "Re: Orangs as Closest"